Is Dzogchen neutral with regard to Wisdom? i.e. Dzogchen is Dzogchen whether Wisdom is present or not? If yes, then since Ye shes is Dzog chen, then Ye shes is ye shes whether Wisdom is present or not. If so, then using Wisdom in the translation of Ye shes would be inappropriate.

Is Dzogchen neutral with regard to Wisdom? i.e. Dzogchen is Dzogchen whether Wisdom is present or not? If yes, then since Ye shes is Dzog chen, then Ye shes is ye shes whether Wisdom is present or not. If so, then using Wisdom in the translation of Ye shes would be inappropriate.

Is Dzogchen neutral with regard to Wisdom? i.e. Dzogchen is Dzogchen whether Wisdom is present or not? If yes, then since Ye shes is Dzog chen, then Ye shes is ye shes whether Wisdom is present or not. If so, then using Wisdom in the translation of Ye shes would be inappropriate.

Wisdom is always present.

If by Wisdom, you refer to the knowledge of the actual condition, then you are saying that light can be obscured by darkness or enlightened knowledge can be obscured by misknowledge. If your Wisdom refers to something else, then it is merely mundane wisdom and is of no consequence. Calling that Wisdom becomes an obfuscation.

Sherab wrote:If by Wisdom, you refer to the knowledge of the actual condition, then you are saying that light can be obscured by darkness or enlightened knowledge can be obscured by misknowledge. If your Wisdom refers to something else, then it is merely mundane wisdom and is of no consequence. Calling that Wisdom becomes an obfuscation.

Wisdom (insert favorite jargon here i.e. Jñāna, God, Brahmin, Yeshe, George, Turiyatva etc.) is a state, i.e. the basis (sthana). It is unaffected by either knowledge or ignorance, cannot be improved or damaged, is permanent, self-originated, empty, radiant, etc., has the three kāyas, everyone possesses it, and so on -- you know the drill.

For those who may be interested to know, the definition of Yeshe that I provided in the opening post was the answer given to me by the yangsi of my teacher's teacher when I posted the question to him. I did not mention this earlier because I want to know what people here really think of it without be influenced by that fact.

Malcolm wrote:If one knows [shes] the buddhahood that has always been [ye] naturally formed by nature, there will be buddhahood of clear realization. That is the definition of wisdom [ye shes].

Rigpa Rangshar tantra.

Earlier you stated "Wisdom (insert favorite jargon here i.e. Jñāna, God, Brahmin, Yeshe, George, Turiyatva etc.) is a state, i.e. the basis (sthana). It is unaffected by either knowledge or ignorance, cannot be improved or damaged, is permanent, self-originated, empty, radiant, etc., has the three kāyas, everyone possesses it, and so on -- you know the drill." Therefore the basis cannot be Ye she since the basis + knowledge of the basis = ye she according to the Rigpa Rangshar.